They're throwing them away
The article discusses a large number of Iraq war veterans who are being denied full benefits because it has been determined that they suffered from pre-existing mental health issues before their deployment. The military is suggesting that the mental health of these soldiers after their deployment is the result of these undiagnosed pre-existing conditions rather than PTSD from their experiences in combat. Because of this they are receiving downgraded VA benefits, and in many cases reduced financial support.
Let me lay out what I believes this country should do for it's citizen soldiers.
- Every citizen that takes up arms to support this country should have lifetime health care benefits. This applies to every person who serves not just those who serve in a combat zone. It is our responsibility to ensure that those who serve in any capacity in the defense of our freedom deserve the best care in return.
- Everyone who serves in the military should have complete access to our higher education system. The days of allotting a fixed education benefit should be replaced by a commitment to providing the best education that the individual can attain. No one who serves should have to choose what they can afford, they should be able to attend wherever they choose. They also should be provided living expenses while they are in school.
How we treat the soldiers that defend our freedom reflects on us as a society. The soldiers who serve to keep us free should receive benefits from our society greater then those who choose not to serve. Although we owe these patriots a debt that can never be repaid, we should do our best to ensure that we make every effort to compensate them for their sacrifice.
People speak of our WWII veterans as "the greatest generation". I believe that the solders that serve today are every bit as great as generations past. They answered the call to serve, and make great sacrifices for their countryman. Let's ensure that we don't break the faith that we have established with them.
- ND
16 comments:
I agree, but I don't think they were fighting for our freedom. I think their good faith in our country was hijacked for monetary greed, and thus these soliders should be apologized to as well as justly compensated. However, while we are on the subject healthcare should be available to all human beings as well as higher education. But definetly healthcare. The Republicans would not agree, at least the ones that have been elected as they just upheld the "President's" veto on a bill that would have provided healthcare to hundreds and hundreds of children in Missouri alone.
SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) covers approximately 70,000 of Missouri's children and 6 million kids nationwide. Over 120,000 of Missouri's children currently lack health insurance, and SCHIP does not have adequate resources to cover all of these children.
Good topic - and good points. It's funny how what politicians say and what they do just doesn't add up. What politician has EVER said, "let's cut benefits for veterans?" Most talk about increasing them, making them more available, or increasing the effeciency of delivery, availability. Yet there's another article exposing the system for what truly happens. I'm with you, ND, on supporting politicians who will really do the right thing by veterans. But I'm not holding my breath. Instead, I've contacted the DAV for information on how to directly help a disabled veteran. Most opportunities are for giving rides to doctor's appointments, but there are other ways to help. I'm sorry I haven't actually signed up to do it yet, but I'm waiting for a break in my schedule. Soccer ends this week, cross country was over yesterday - you can imagine how I run around. Helping one or two vets at a time may not be effecient, but it's what I can realistically do.
Alice...
I wish I saw the non-vet health care debate the same way, but I don't. I'm not in favor of a nationalized health care plan because I believe that it is just another opportunity for the government to inefficiently spend my tax dollars.
It's easy to look at other countries and their socialized medical systems and long for one here, but in my mind it's not that simple. I'm a fan of personal responsibility, so needless to say I don't believe the government should play Robin Hood with my tax dollars.
There is no mandate for socialized medicine. There is however great opportunity to make the existing system better. If the government would do a better job of regulating the existing health care market, many problems could be solved.
I'm not heartless. I don't like seeing children without health care. I just want that to be the problem of the parents that brought them into this world. I don't believe it is a social problem that needs to be solved through some government program.
My taxes already pay to educate, feed and house many of the "underprivileged" in our society. At what point are the parents of these children responsible for their welfare.
As for education... I'm sure we all agree there.
Until we are willing to change our health care system so that health insurance is truly "insurance," nothing anybody does will be much good. What do I mean? When's the last time you tried to submit an oil change or a set of tires to your auto insurance company for reimbursement? But we expect our health "insurance" to cover a $10 amoxicilian prescription when a kid has an ear infection. Insurance is for costs you cannot bear - like the $500,000 hospital bill said kids rang up - not for costs we've become insulated against because someone else was paying for it.
(btw, that half mil was just the hospital bill. that didn't include 4 months of physicians' and staff charges...)
I'm sure this will be the last word as the Cap'n surely doesn't have any opinions on this subject.
nordy... as usual you are correct, and I appreciate your enlightened view.
Catastrophic care could fall into one of those "reforms" of the current system I referred to.
We don't hesitate to spend $400 dollars a month on a car payment. Another $100 for cable or satellite. Yet if someone says your health care cost is $500 a month everyone throws a conniption fit.
Go figure?
- ND
Until they experience PTSD, none of them will understand.
I agree stepped on a crack.
But I don't see the point in educating, housing and feeding the children of the "underprivileged" if we are not going to inoculate and medicate.
Why don't we just let the poor children born to losers forego education, housing, and food? They'd be sure to get sick sooner and die. Then think of all the money we'd save!
If we don't have equality in healthcare, at least for children, then what were these veterans fighting for,(what goes here?)
Alice... I assume that the word you are looking for is "anyway".
(Nabor Dan smiles knowingly)
- ND
Alice...
Now to answer your question directly...
Where is the end of the slippery slope? Why shouldn't we (the taxpayer) provide birth-to-grave social benefits for everyone?
The answer is we shouldn't. We already provide far to many services.
I notice that you keep using children as the target of these references. The problem isn't the children it's their parents. I don't have an issue providing short term services to people in an emergency, but people don't look at goverment services as emergency service. People look at goverment programs as a right.
What happened before social security? What did people do before there was a welfare state? Simply put... they provided for themselves.
Somewhere between the complete abscence of social services and the welfare state lies the answer. Where specifically that line should be I don't know.
- ND
Stepped...
I'm sure that you are correct.
- ND
I agree Nabor Dan. But I use to think we had all the answers. Will we ever find an answer? Will people like us ever do something other than vote? Voting seems to accomplish little.
OK, I'm here.
First, "socialized Medicine" such a Medicare and Medicaid has a significantly lower cost in overhead than commercial insurance -- 2 percent versus 18 percent. It is inherently more efficient, in part because it negotiates with providers more efficiently and doesn't spend a large portion of its revenue spending time researching claims to deny. And, yes that is well documented.
Insurance of any kind is more efficient when its costs are spread over a wider pool of risks. This is why a single payer system, is more efficient -- it isn't based on the idea of socialism, but economics. It also would ensure that those who for whatever reason cannot get commercial insurance are covered.
Certain "collective expenditures" are required to balance society. While goverment cannot solve all problems, it can leverage larger priorities through its size and scope. This means education, transportation, defense and other priorities are not subject to economic free-riders -- I don't drive there so I shouldn't have to pay. I don't believe in the military so I won't pay for defense. Etc.
SCHIP is a good program. It should have ben expanded. The costs of reduced access to preventative care will outweight the savings from reduced coverage. Once again, this is well documented.
Unfortunately, our "ownership society" doesn't comprehend that strategic investment and collective effort are what has made this nation great.
Our tax system is incredibly regressive by comparison to what it was in the 1960s and 1970s. The marginal rate for the most wealthy in the 1950s and 60s was between 70 and 90 percent. Did that wreck the economy?
The goverment is not the answer to every problem -- but neither is unchecked capitalism.
Cap'n D.
I vote for Cap'n D!
More...
(after all I do have a job)
When you put people in charge of the government who don't believe that goverment can do anything right, you find that it is a self fulfilling prophesy.
The current administration is composed of individuals who have a strong conviction that the goverment gets in the way of free enterprise. That's why they've been committed to reducing taxes to "starve the beast" while rolling back decades worth of regulations that protect consumers, the environment and fair trade.
Unfortunately, they didn't realize that creating a "war presidency" would require the effective use of goverment. Look at the significant oversight Congress had during the second world war. There was no profiteering, wage controls were put in place, the war wasn't outsourced. Hell, even kids participated in metal and rubber drives to build the resources and share the pain.
None of it has happened this time around, because 1. we have not been asked to sacrifice, and 2. the war on terror exists in the minds of Americans not on any battlefield. Did we get Bin Laden? Why not. Weren't we going to "smoke him out?"
Why are we appauled by the lack of this administration to take care of soldiers when they have shown no interest in caring for anyone else.
If you want to take care of soldiers, forge a national energy strategy that reduces our dependence on resources from the worlds hot spots.
Offer those who fought care, of course. But engage the rest of the country in a debate larger than bunper sticker sloganism on why we're the greatest nation in the world. If freedom isn't free, then don't reduce civil liberties? Are we really that stupid?
Ben Franklin said: "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve, nor will he ever receive either."
The issue isn't terror, it's hope. Once we realize that, we'll be on our way to security, prosperity and greatness.
And again.
Just re-reading some of the posts. I understand where you are all coming from. But, please remember, not everyone has a $400 per month car payment or $100 in cable or satellite.
Some people take public transit because they can't afford gas or insurance, let alone a car.
Others get basic cable because they can't afford any other activities such as going to a movie or a night on the town.
Please don't assume that since your peers make these choices that they are choices that everyone makes.
As far as oil changes and tires not being included in auto insurance, remember cosmetic damage to your vehicle is covered after your deductible. Ever had hail damage? It doesn't change how your car works.
Health insurance with affordable co-pays for care encourages regular Dr. visits which reduce health costs. You don't have to get pnemonia, but when you do because you didn't get vaccinated or preventative care when the illenss came on, you can end up in very expensive intensive care or dead.
Wellness is cheaper than illness -- that's why the system works the way it does.
Taxes will continue, so will safety nets. Until you remember that your parents would be moving in with you if Social Security didn't exist, and that they would be desititude from health costs without Medicare you don't get the full picture.
Both of these "government programs" are great successes and wildly popular. Don't believe for a minute that they won't continue to be here forever unless you let the same scoundrals who are currently running the government screw them up.
When is Bro. Dave running for president? I'd like to help with that campaign.
Post a Comment